This post is
not intended to be taken dogmatically; I do not insist that its conclusions are
correct; they are just presented for consideration.

In this
post, though they have already been much discussed and debated within
alternative media, I’ll address three major components of the 9/11 controversy:

(1) what brought down the Twin Towers; (2) what initially struck the Towers;
and, (3) what happened to the original planes and passengers.

However,
there is a valid complaint often voiced in the Truth Movement, which runs like
this: “I really don’t care how 9/11 was done and I’m tired of all the infighting
about this. What really matters is, we know the government’s story is bogus, so
we need to focus on identifying the criminals and bringing them to justice.”

I consider
this a very legitimate grievance. But
I don’t think we can separate “who” from “how.” When a prosecutor presents his
case in a courtroom, he doesn’t name a crime’s perpetrator without describing
how the crime was carried out. Nor does he present the jury with the crime’s
details and methodology without identifying the suspect(s).

So let’s
tackle both how and who, and we’ll start with “who,” because doing so clarifies
a lot of “how.”

The Who

What’s wrong
with the following math equations?

3 + 3 = 68
98 – 7 = 2
58 X 7 = 35

What’s
wrong, of course, are the 8s. Take away the 8s and each equation reads
correctly.

I believe that,
when it comes to resolving the mystery of how 9/11 was executed, the Truth
Movement suffers from a major “8” (in addition to any individual doses of cognitive
dissonance that have been deliberately sprinkled in). I believe that “8” is:

9/11 was an inside job.

I believe a far
more correct rendering is:

9/11 was an outside job, done by
Israeli operatives, but with consent and cooperation at the highest levels of
the U.S. government.

To
understand this, it may be helpful to compare Israel’s vicious 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. It is well understood that President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense
Secretary Robert McNamara fully cooperated, by twice recalling U.S. fighters
that the Sixth Fleet had sent to rescue the Liberty,
and later by ordering a cover-up. However, at
the physical operational level, the attack was carried out by Israelis, not
by Americans in an “inside job.”

OK, but what’s
the evidence that Israel was behind 9/11? By far the best summary I’ve seen is
the WikiSpooks post 9-11/Israel Did It. (Incidentally, as many of my regular readers know,
I’m half-Jewish on my father’s side, so knee-jerk charges against me of
“anti-Semitism” can be stuffed in the appropriate place.)

A sampling
of highlights:
• The five notorious “dancing Israelis” who filmed the Twin Towers’ destruction,
after which they celebrated, high-fiving each other and even photographing
themselves flicking a lighter against the backdrop of the smoking ruins. They
were arrested after driving off in a van whose license number was reported by a
neighbor. Later it was revealed that at least two of them were agents of
Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service.

• Michael Chertoff was put in charge of the Justice Department’s
investigation of 9/11, despite his mother having been a Mossad agent, and
Chertoff himself reportedly holding dual citizenship in Israel. Chertoff
released hundreds of arrested Israelis back to Israel, including the notorious
“dancing Israelis.”

• Quoting Wikispooks: “The company
that ran airport security at all three airports where the alleged hijackings
originated was Huntsleigh USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of ICTS International
and owned by Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon —both Israeli Jews.”

• ”Lucky Larry” Silverstein, who became the new owner of the World Trade Center
less than two months before the attacks, and earned an insurance payout of
nearly $5 billion on his $124 million investment (after missing the disaster
due to a fortuitous doctor’s appointment on the morning of 9/11) was such good
friends with Benjamin Netanyahu that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported in November 2001: “Every Sunday afternoon, New
York time, Netanyahu would call Silverstein. It made no difference what the
subject was or where Netanyahu was, he would always call.”1

•Supported by funds from Israel’s
government, Zim Israel Navigational was the world’s ninth largest shipping
firm. It had its American headquarters in the World Trade Center—until about two weeks before 9/11. Zim then moved its offices, with
all 200 employees, to a new building, claiming rent was cheaper there.

• The 9/11
Commission’s executive director was Philip Zelikow, a dual U.S.-Israeli
citizen. Why should anyone with sworn loyalty to a foreign nation be entrusted
with such a position?

• On 9/11,
the chairman of George W. Bush’s Defense Policy Board was Richard Perle, whom the
National Security Agency had caught spying on the U.S. for Israel in 1970.

• On 9/11,
employees of the Israeli instant messaging company Odigo received messages two
hours before the attack, warning them not to be in the World Trade Center.

• Ptech, a
software firm linked to Israeli intelligence, had provided vital software being
used by the FAA, FBI, and U.S. armed forces on 9/11.

• On 9/11, seated in row 9 of Flight 11 (directly behind “Mohammed Atta”)
was Danny Lewin, a former captain in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force), and who
served in the Sayeret Matkal,
which specializes in counter-terrorism, hostage rescue, and assassination.
Lewin could bench-press 315 pounds and “was trained to kill terrorists with a
pen or a credit card, or just his bare hands.”2 In 2000, he had
himself photographed in front of panels resembling the Twin Towers, wearing a
Swatch Watch whose model name was “Hijacker.” The hour, minute and second hands
were all on the “11” and the date was set to the 11th, even though the picture
was taken on the 10th.

The odds against all four time indicators being on “11” are more than
20,000 to 1. Times the odds of the watch model being named “Hijacker”: unfathomable.

That’s just
a small sampling of the evidence that Israel did 9/11. When police detectives try to solve
a murder, among the first questions asked is: Who benefitted from the crime? In
9/11's case, Middle Eastern Muslims did not benefit—the U.S. has been making war on them for 16 years. America
did not benefit—we’re suffering the casualties and trillions
in costs from the wars, as well as degradation of our liberties in the name of
security. The only beneficiary was Israel—her enemies have been neutralized one by one, courtesy America, in
fulfillment of the Greater Israel plan, with Iran reputedly next on
the hit list.

That’s the main
who; let’s talk about the how.

(1) How were the Twin
Towers destroyed?

Within alternative
media are three major schools of thought about this. One is nano-thermite,
largely advocated by Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth. Another is
Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs), whose foremost advocate is Dr.
Judy Wood. The third
is nuclear devices, which I and a few others support. Let me be clear: I have
friends in all three camps, and differing opinions on this matter don’t impede
our friendships.

I’ve laid
out why I believe the Twin Towers’ collapse was a nuclear event in an extensive
blog post. To minimize redundancy, I’ll shrink
this to a “top ten” list:

TOP TEN REASONS THE WTC COLLAPSE WAS
A NUCLEAR EVENT

1.
Thyroid cancer occurs at above-average frequency in 9/11 first responders more
than any other type of cancer (see full post
for citations). This is a signature of nuclear bombs; they emit iodine-131,
which collects in the thyroid, often causing cancer. (This is why some people
keep potassium iodide tablets on hand—to protect their thyroid glands in case
of a nuclear attack.)

2. World
Trade Center dust samples examined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
found Uranium, Strontium, Barium, Thorium, and other products of nuclear
fission, in high concentrations that only an atomic blast could explain.
Although the Survey avoided calling attention to the significance, William
Tahil vetted it in his pioneering 2006 book Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade
Centre. (“The phrase
“ground zero,” incidentally, had only been applied to nuclear detonation sites
prior to 9/11.)

3. There was
molten steel underneath the rubble of the World Trade Center, whose fires kept
burning for over three months. Extraordinary heat is yet another signature of a
nuclear bomb.

(Note: I’m aware that molten steel was seen at a corner of the South Tower
before its collapse; I don’t doubt that pre-planted explosives were in the
Towers, probably including the incendiary thermite, but I don’t believe these
explosives were what destroyed the WTC. To clarify, each Tower had six basement
levels, and the thesis of my full post—which I had excellent assistance with—is
that each Tower was destroyed by a suitcase nuke positioned at the lowest point
in either building: the services pits beneath elevator 50. This was the only
elevator that ran the full length of either Tower, and the only elevator whose
service pits were carved into the bedrock beneath the World Trade Center. This
location would make the ideal “launching pad” for a nuke, as the bedrock would
contain the sideways and downward force of a nuclear explosion, which would
follow the path of least resistance up through the shaft. See the full post for
diagrams.)

4. The
Towers did not simply “fall,” they exploded, throwing chunks of steel weighing
multiple tons hundreds of feet. Check, for example, this piece that embedded
itself in the American Express Building across the street:

No exotic
weapons are needed to explain this. A nuclear bomb is the most powerful
explosive known.

5. The
Towers’ inner contents were vaporized:
no furniture, filing cabinets (except one), computers, or toilets survived. All
turned into dust. Even the buildings’ concrete became dust, instead of falling
as chunks of debris. The vaporization, of course, included the people inside
(whole bodies that were found
belonged to people who jumped before the Towers disintegrated). Not only is a nuclear
bomb the most powerful explosive known, its blast—unlike conventional explosives—endures for several seconds, enabling it to
inflict considerably more damage.

6. At the
times of the two Tower “collapses,” seismographs at Columbia University's
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, recorded enormous
off-the-chart spikes consistent with
huge explosions.

7. A nuclear
blast explains the damage to the rest of the World Trade Center. Buildings 5
and 7 suffered enormous fires, and building 6 was cratered out. These phenomena
could not have begun before the Towers’ destruction; otherwise, videos of the
burning Towers would have shown additional smoke plumes, and cameras would have
panned to the blazes.

Nuclear blasts originating at the lowest levels of the Twin Towers may
provide the answer. Underground the
World Trade Center was interconnected by pipes, not only for sewage, but a 3-foot-wide
storm water drainage system.

Any building’s place at greatest risk for flooding is its lowest point.
For the Twin Towers, this would have been Elevator 50’s service pits. From here
flood water would be pumped through pipes to the 36-inch storm drain. Thus
atomic blasts here would not only follow the path of least resistance through
Elevator 50’s shaft, but through the 36-inch
storm water drain, traveling through the underground pipes and shooting up
through buildings 5, 6 and 7, igniting them. Falling debris could not have
caused the raging internal fires seen in the smaller buildings; edifices outside the World Trade Center (American
Express Building, Winter Garden Atrium) were heavily impacted by debris, but theydid
not catch fire. THEY WERE NOT CONNECTED TO THE WTC’S UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE
SYSTEM.

Please see my full post for elaboration and documentation of the above
point.

8. On 9/11, New Yorkers fled two terrifying dust clouds that engulfed
the area surrounding the WTC. Anyone who watches videos of nuclear bombs will
see that they create sprawling ground-level clouds. Although building
demolitions also routinely create
dust clouds, the 9/11 ones seemed to have had a life of their own.

(A noteworthy observation in this film is that as people flee the cloud
behind them, smoke is flowing up from the sewer drains in front of them. Since the World Trade Center’s underground pipes
ultimately emptied into New York City’s sewer, this is further evidence of the secondary
effects of an underground nuke. Continuous flow of nuclear smoke from the
sewers might account for the “toasted cars” later noticed along the side
streets.)

9. CIA asset Susan Lindauer (second cousin to Andrew Card, George W.
Bush’s Chief of Staff) has stated that U.S. intelligence received advance
warnings of the 9/11 attacks (her whistle-blowing eventually led to her being
sent to a federal prison). According to Lindauer, the advance warning the CIA
received included the destruction of the
World Trade Center by a “mini-nuke.”3

Such groups nullify the need to have
air power or intercontinental missiles as delivery systems for an Islamic
nuclear payload. They will be the delivery system. In the worst
of such scenarios, the consequences could be not a car bomb but a nuclear bomb in the basement of the World Trade
Center.4 [emphasis his]

Two days
after 9/11, NBC’s Tom Brokaw interviewed Netanyahu, who said:

Even though
Netanyahu revised “nuclear” to “conventional,” one must ask how he knew the
bomb’s specific yield. In fact, how did Bibi know it was a bomb at all? Supposedly plane crashes had brought the Towers down.

A common
objection to the nuclear hypothesis: “Where are the post-9/11 Geiger counter
readings showing lots of radiation in New York City?” The answer: not all
nuclear bombs discharge large amounts of radiation. Most use a combination of
nuclear fission and fusion; if the fission is high, fallout (radiation) will be
high; but if fission is low compared to fusion, fallout will be low. During the
Cold War, the United States began developing tactical nuclear weapons, also known as “battlefield nukes.”
Obviously, in a battlefield situation, a low-radiation weapon is desired;
otherwise it could harm one’s own army.

What types
of nuclear warheads does Israel stockpile? Although this is an ironclad state
secret, it should be obvious that Israel would emphasize “battlefield” nukes.
In war with its neighbors, it wouldn’t want radiation blowback to Tel Aviv. A
modern suitcase nuke is small enough to carry in a
backpack.

(2) What struck the
Towers?

When I first heard
of the “no planes” theory (no planes hit the Twin Towers) my reaction was
something like: “Of all the stupid %@!&*! There must have been a million
people in New York City who saw that plane hit the South Tower in real time.
Anyone who believes in ‘no planes’ is embracing cognitive dissonance that is
designed to discredit the whole 9/11 Movement!”

However, as
I examined facts, my position began evolving. For one thing, there was little
evidence of Flight 93 at the Shanksville crash site:

Unlike other
airliner crash sites, which are littered with wreckage and bodes, the ground
swallowed up Flight 93. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said: “This
crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."5

Likewise, at
the Pentagon, there was stunning lack of evidence for a plane:

Pentagon
witness April Gallup:

Supposedly
Flight 77 dove 7,000 feet, then pulled out of its dive (a maneuver impossible
for a commercial jetliner,) and flew perfectly level to the ground (not even
scuffing it) and smashed into the Pentagon’s first floor, its aluminum fuselage
ramming through three of the reinforced concrete rings:

Major
General Albert Stubblebine:

Given the
doubts about planes crashing at Shanksville and the Pentagon, might the 9/11
perpetrators have used the same modus
operandi at the Twin Towers? Was it possible that no real planes hit them?

There are,
in fact, two substantial reasons why
Flights 11 and 175 could not have been what struck the World Trace Center.

First, the object that hit the South Tower
was traveling 590 miles per hour,6 whereas a Boeing 767’s maximum
operating speed at ground level is about 420 mph.7 Now, it is absolutely true that at high altitude, a
767 can cruise above 500 mph (due to the thinner atmosphere) and that if it suddenly
dove, it could maintain such velocity. The problem: when a Boeing reaches
ground altitude, it becomes uncontrollable at these speeds. Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains it in this 6-minute video:

See also the
detailed affidavit by veteran pilot John Lear, son of Bill Lear, inventor of the
Lear Jet.

9/11’s success
required perfect execution. Both objects hitting the Twin Towers scored
bull’s-eyes. But let’s say whoever was piloting Flight 175 slightly erred, and only
clipped the South Tower with his left wing. What would have happened? The plane
would have crashed elsewhere in New York City; but more importantly, the Tower
could not have been demolished. Regardless of what demolition theory one
ascribes to—nano-thermite, directed energy, or nukes—the 9/11 perpetrators
would not have dared collapse the Tower on the pretext that a wing grazed it.
The plan required perfection; misses couldn’t be tolerated. But no pilots, however
good, could guarantee bull’s-eyes at the given speeds.

Second is the impossible physics displayed
in news footage of Flight 175 vanishing into the South Tower, its fragile aluminum
wings and tail slicing through the 14-inch steel columns “like a hot knife
through butter.” For those new to 9/11 Truth, there are innumerable posts and
videos about this; I’ll embed a slo-mo clip here:

We’re
watching an impossibility. A jetliner’s aluminum wings and tail would have
broken off on hitting the Tower’s steel columns. Here’s footage of a real
airliner crash; the wings are sliced off by wooden
telephone poles:

Jetliner
noses are so fragile they’ve been crushed by bird impacts. Here’s a screen shot
from the May 7, 2015 Telegraph:

Many more
examples of bird-damaged airline noses can be found online. Regardless of
speed, such noses could have not have performed as “battering rams” on 9/11;
they would have crumpled upon impacting the steel columns.

Many believe
all the images of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower were clever CGIs
(computer-generated images) created after the fact. However, Richard Hall has
produced a compelling video refuting that. He made a computerized scale model
of New York City; he then took the 26 highest-quality videos of 175 hitting the
Tower.

In all 26 videos, filmed from many angles, the object followed the
precise same trajectory. This indicates a real object hit the Tower. I won’t
embed his 35-minute video, but click here if you wish to view.

What, then, struck
the Towers? We are pretty much reduced to two options. Hall concludes it was a
missile shrouded in a plane’s image.

A. The Missile Hypothesis

A cruise
missile would resolve all the problems a plane presents: speed, accuracy and
penetration. A missile can be guided with precision to a target; is not
disturbed by the “G-forces” that stress a winged plane; and a missile’s nose is
hardened for penetration.

Many will
rightly object that the plane footage was corroborated by countless New Yorkers
who witnessed a plane strike the South Tower. However, there’s an explanation
far more credible than it may at first sound: holographic cloaking. The Air
Force developed such technology years ago, and fortunately people made screen
shots of the web page before it was taken down. It demonstrates
that the Air Force was capable of creating a 3-dimensional image of a plane, in broad daylight, so realistic
that it could deceive enemy antiaircraft gunners.

Quoting the
Air Force’s own description:

The holographic projector displays a
three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display
generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic
perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking,
providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.

Capabilities

Precision projection of 3-D visual
images into a selected area

Supports PSYOP and strategic
deception management

Provides deception and cloaking
against optical sensors

But could
the American military have been persuaded to launch missiles against American
targets? While it’s possible, give the
darkness of the “military-industrial complex,” the Israeli military would have had no hesitation. Remember their
attack on the USS Liberty.

How could
Israel have launched cruise missiles against us? Israel began replacing her
1970s-era submarine fleet with new Dolphin-class submarines, capable of firing cruise missiles, in 1999.8 In 2000,
the U.S. Navy observed these subs test-firing missiles in the Indian Ocean.9

The plane-shaped
damage on the sides of the burning towers would likely be from charges planted by
the notorious Israeli art students before 9/11; the missile could have
set these off.

B. The Drone Hypothesis

Last summer, during his book tour, I had the pleasure of meeting Chris
Bollyn, one of the
best 9/11 researchers. After Chris completed his PowerPoint presentation, he
took audience questions, and I asked his opinion of the “no planes” theory.
Chris said that on images of Flight 175’s underside, there appears to be a
“pod” or missile; its nose lights up when it meets the building. (This is much discussed
in the 9/11 movement. Such a missile could not have been attached to Flight 175
without being noticed by Logan Airport maintenance crews.)

Above: the “pod”

Chris asked:
if it was only a hologram, why would they bother including a missile’s image? His
conclusion: missile-carrying drones struck the Towers.

The drone
hypothesis is consistent with Operation Northwoods, a 1962 Pentagon plan to stage a “false
flag” in order to justify invading Cuba. It involved swapping drones mid-air
for a passenger planes. If, in fact, 9/11 was an updated version of Operation
Northwoods, it might explain why Flights 11 and 175 came so close to each other
(“nearly colliding”) over Stewart Air Force Base.

This
path-crossing might have marked the ideal time to launch drones, which could
have followed the planes tightly to avoid radar detection.

Drones could
also resolve the (relatively minor) aircraft debris photographed near the Pentagon
and World Trade Center after 9/11.

However, the
drone hypothesis presents its own problems. Wouldn’t a 767-sized drone run into
the same issue of high-speed controllability as a 767 passenger plane? And
could a drone’s wings and tail slice
through the 14-inch steel any more easily than a jetliner’s?

Perhaps the
answer to Chris’s question—If it was only a hologram, why would they bother
including an image of a missile?—is that the missile was real, but the plane
was the image cloaking it.

I’m open to
both possibilities—missiles or drones. I’ll note that drones somewhat reduce Israel’s
degree of involvement, since an Israeli sub could launch cruise missiles, but
not drones.

Incidentally,
the Northeast Air Defense Sector did receive a report from the FAA's Boston
Center, saying Flight 11 had not hit
the North Tower but was still airborne and heading south. You can hear it, as
recorded live, in the documentary Intercepted
by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (I’ve embedded the relevant 1-minute clip):

Although
some believe this message was an error, or even a phantom call to distract
fighters from Flight 77 (then approaching Washington), it confirms there was
official belief on 9/11 that Flight 11 was not what hit the Towers.

(3) What happened to the original
planes and passengers?

Not only
were the alleged 9/11 hijackers incompetent pilots, but several later turned up alive.

As a result,
we in the Truth Movement has been running some scenarios like this:

THEREFORE there were no hijackers on the planes at all;
THEREFORE the planes were electronically hijacked;
THEREFORE the calls from the planes were faked, probably by passengers and crew
who were hired as crisis actors;
THEREFORE the planes probably landed at military bases; the crisis actors were
paid handsomely and given new identities;

OR the calls were not actually from the passengers themselves, but CIA agents
digitally posing as passengers, using voice print technology, etc.

However,
although I have spent much time seriously exploring these possibilities, and
still entertain some questions regarding Flight 11, I now believe these are mostly rabbit
holes. I started looking at 9/11 from the viewpoint: “If this was an Israeli operation, how would they execute
it?” Here’s my conclusion.

I believe there
were hijackers on 9/11. But they
weren’t Arabs. They were elite Israeli elite special ops, Sayeret Matkal, using
Arab IDs (except for Danny Lewin). Not even Mossad would be entrusted with an
operation of such military caliber. Darker men who could pass for Arabs would
have been selected for the mission.

Unlike Hani
Hanjour and the rest of the Arab patsies, who couldn’t control little Cessnas
at 65 nauts at flight-training schools, these special ops would have had months
of training on Boeing 757s and 767s, plenty of which were in El Al’s (Israel’s)
fleet:

They would
have practiced cockpit invasion countless times, probably using a Boeing in an
Israeli hangar, using real people play-acting as the “American pilots and
crews” who would have to be overwhelmed. “Good work; that took nine seconds;
let’s see if we can get it down to eight.”

How would
Israeli commandos invade the cockpit so quickly? Mary Ellen Moore, co-producer
of the movie I scripted ShadowRing), was a career flight attendant. She tells me tells me cockpit
doors were standardly locked by 2001 to guard against hijacking. The attendants
did keep a cockpit key in a secret location in case of emergency. I recently asked
Mary Ellen if the key-lock set was unique for each Boeing cockpit, or was it
universal? She wasn’t sure, so she asked a pilot friend, who told her that, up
until 9/11, it was universal.

I think,
then, we can answer how the hijackers breached the cockpits. They had keys, or copies of keys, provided
by El-Al. As we have said, everything on 9/11 had to go like clockwork and
be virtually guaranteed. They certainly weren’t going to struggle trying to
kick in a locked cockpit door, or (as some in mainstream mediasuggested) holding a box-cutter to a flight
attendant’s throat, saying something like, “Open the door or the broad here gets
it!” What if the pilots said “No!”? Furthermore, in hijacking situations, all pilots
were trained to immediately type in a 4-digit code that alerted air traffic
control. None of the pilots on any of the airliners did that. I don’t think
they had time.

We know through
the calls from AA 11 that two hijackers had been in Row 2 of First Class. (Having
people seated up front was presumably standard on all these operations.) They
probably waited until the flight attendants were distracted (or more likely,
they created a distraction; Danny Lewin
back in Row 9: “Oh, Miss, I feel sick!”) Once inside the cockpit, they would
have killed the pilots instantly.

(Remember, Lewin reportedly “was trained to
kill terrorists with a pen or a credit card, or just his bare hands”) and this would
have held true for the rest of the Sayeret Matkal. There is no evidence that
there were struggles in the cockpits of Flights 11, 175 or 77. The hijackers
would not have tried to “cut their throats with box-cutters,” which would have
splattered the controls with blood. The pilots would have been killed (or
rendered unconscious) instantly with the best device Sayeret Matkal had, such
as an Epipen-style injector.

The
hijackers would have removed the dead pilots from their seats, and taken
control of the planes, fully familiar
with Boeings from hundreds of hours of practice with El-Al jets. One hijacker
would likely have been designated the expert pilot, with one or two others
capable of backing him up.

I don’t
think the passenger calls were faked. I think they wanted those calls made to establish the narrative that hijackings
were under way. Here’s an amazing sentence from the September 21, 2001 London Telegraph: “Accounts from the other
doomed planes indicate that the hijackers encouraged people to call their
families and tell them what was happening.”10 Say what?!? What evil
hijackers would encourage people to
call their families?

This would
also explain why the hijackers weren’t patrolling the aisles. They wanted passengers feeling safe enough to
start picking up those air phones and calling in order to establish the “Muslim
hijacking” narrative.

I want to
add something here about cell phones. Some calls came from cell phones instead
of air phones, and we have been told this was not possible in the existing 2001
technology.

However, my
flight attendant friend Mary Ellen Moore reports that in late 1998, she and a
pilot were flying, as passengers, at high altitude over Nebraska. The pilot
opened his ATT Flip Phone and called his wife. After chatting for a while, he handed
the phone to Mary Ellen, who also spoke with his wife, until a flight attendant
came past and scolded them.

Mary Ellen
tells me that things are different today; her smart phone shuts off at
altitudes of a couple thousand feet. But she believes we are underrating the
connectivity of cell phones years ago, which was rarely tested, since their use
was forbidden on passengers flights.

I’ll quote The New York Times, which is of course a
mainstream source, but this was less than two weeks after 9/11, before there
was any Truth Movement to rebut:

According to industry experts, it is
possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent
of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal
appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters
and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can
work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be
35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.

''The fact of the matter is that cell
phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight,'' said Marvin
Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon
University. ''An excess of caution prevents us from doing so, of course,
because we are so worried about the safety of air travel.''11
(emphasis added)

In any
event, while many 9/11 cell phone calls undoubtedly didn’t connect, it appears
from the record that some did. These, along with the air phone calls, gave the
hijackers sufficient “narrative.”

This
narrative had been progressively established in the days leading up to 9/11:

In Germany, Mohammed
Atta had been a shy architectural student; according to his family, he was
timid around girls and hated to fly. But a very different Atta appeared in
America. U.S. journalist Daniel Hopsicker, in his book Welcome to Terrorland,
cited testimony that “Atta,” in Florida, was a party animal who loved to drink,
snort cocaine, and listen to rock ‘n’ roll. According to eyewitnesses, on the
Friday before 9/11, Atta and two other alleged hijackers went to Shukum’s
Oyster Bar in Hollywood, Florida, where they drank heavily, played video games
and cursed. They argued with the manager over their bill, which Atta paid with
a $100 bill, saying, “Of course I can pay the bill. I’m an airline pilot.”12

On Sept. 14,
2001, CBS News reported:

Three men spewed anti-American sentiments in a bar and
talked of impending bloodshed the night before the terrorist attacks on New
York and Washington, a Daytona Beach strip club manager interviewed by the FBI
said Thursday.

“They were talking about what a bad place America is.
They said ‘Wait ‘til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,’” said John
Kap, manager of the Pink Pony and Red Eyed Jack’s Sports Bar. . . .

In Daytona Beach, Kap said he told FBI investigators
the men in his bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks, paying
with credit cards. Kap said he gave the FBI credit card receipts, photocopied
driver’s licenses, a business card left by one man and a copy of the Quran—the
sacred book of Islam—that was left at
the bar.13

We were
consistently told that Atta and his fellow hijackers were Islamic
fundamentalists, motivated to die for their faith. Yet their lifestyle
completely contradicted this thesis. What devout Muslim brings his Koran to a
strip club? What operatives on a secret mission call attention to themselves by
loudly arguing over bills and leaving behind their business cards? These facts
do not fit the official story—they do, however, fit someone planting a trail of
misleading evidence.

That trail went
right up to the morning up 9/11; a car attributed to the hijackers was found at
Boston’s Logan Airport. Inside: a Koran and a flight training manual. What were
investigators to conclude from these clues?

L A Koran. Hmmm . . . These guys must have been Muslims!

K A flight training manual . . . Aha! Flight training school!

J Now, a Koran with a flight training manual . . .
Eureka! These were Muslims at a flight training school!

Too conveniently, Atta’s luggage didn’t make it onto
Flight 11. If was from this luggage that the FBI so quickly learned the “identities”
of the 19 hijackers. (Of course, 9/11 Truthers have always asked why Atta would
bother bringing luggage for a trip on which he planned to commit suicide.)

But I think
we’re ending the play at Act One if we stop there, and insist no hijackers ever
boarded the aircraft, and that no hijackings occurred. Israeli operatives would
have boarded using the same fake/stolen Arab IDs found in Atta’s luggage.
Carrying out the hijacking itself, prompting numerous calls from flight
attendants and passengers, would have been the
culmination that all these planted clues led up to.

A Disservice

I think some
of us in the Truth Movement have done a disservice to the passengers and crews on
these flights by turning victims of
the Israelis into perpetrators. (It’s
kind of like saying the sailors on the USS
Liberty conspired in the attack on themselves.) The “Inside Job” paradigm has
led some to say the 9/11 passengers faked the phone calls—or even that the
people never existed.

Shortly
after 9/11, at the Winchester, Mass., church I was attending, during the
post-service coffee I struck up a conversation with a lady who turned out to be
a flight attendant. She told me how she’d lost one of her best friends on one
of the 9/11 flights.

On Flight
175 was Garnet “Ace” Baily, a professional hockey scout. “Ace” had played for
the Boston Bruins; I can still remember him coming off the bench in Game 1 of
the 1972 Stanley Cup Finals, scoring a goal to break a 5-5 tie and win it for Boston.
“Ace” Bailey attempted four phone calls to his wife from Flight 175. No one has
seen him since 9/11. Yes, “Ace” was a real person. And I think any serious
researcher will acknowledge that the same holds true for the other passengers
and crew members.

This segues
to the next aberration: that the crews and passengers were real, but served as
crisis actors, collaborating with intelligence services to make fake phone
calls describing a non-existent hijacking. It is sometimes presumed that such
were handsomely paid, assigned new identities, and moved to exotic locations to
live out the rest of their days.

But this
doesn’t withstand scrutiny either. No one gets a million bucks and a new
identity just for making a 30-second phone call to their home—and most on those
planes didn’t make calls at all.

Furthermore,
what if some had remorse after seeing images of the Twin Towers collapse and
said: “Screw their money! I didn’t know I was part of this!”? Could 9/11’s architects risk some supposedly-dead flight
attendant being “resurrected,” returning to their home town and family, and
being interviewed by the local newspaper? The whole plot would have collapsed.
No, everyone on 9/11 had to die—except the hijackers.

So where did the passengers and
planes go?

If Israeli
special ops flew the Boeings, but didn’t crash them into the buildings, where
did they take them? I don’t think it was “American military bases.” Not for an
Israeli operation. That would open a Pandora’s Box: how to dispose of the
bodies and planes, and the risk of witnesses.

There was
only one place to take them: out into the Atlantic for a rendezvous with an
Israeli ship, very probably that missile-firing sub. That’s where the planes
were headed anyway, if we presume they flew past their targets, be it the WTC or
Pentagon—the nearby Atlantic.

Some may
ask, “But why weren’t been tracked out there by the FAA and NORAD?”

My answer
would be: if they went to military bases, why didn’t the FAA and NORAD track
them there? Both agencies experienced
much confusion on 9/11 due to all the ongoing drills, to say nothing of the
Israeli-linked software running their computers. And as we’ve seen, the FAA did stilltrack Flight 11 south after it allegedly struck the World Trade
Center.

The
passengers and crews had to be immediately silenced after the “crashes.” This would
almost certainly be the time when they died. How? Not with bullets or
explosives, not on an airborne jet. Only one solution would have killed the
passengers while keeping the Israeli hijackers alive: a lethal gas.

We know that
on both Flight 1114 and Flight 93, the hijackers claimed to have a
bomb, which they displayed (on Flight
93, Todd Beamer told his wife the “bomb” was strapped to a hijacker’s waist belt.15)
I suggest two things: (1) although specific mention of a bomb was only made in calls
from Flights 11 and 93, it is likely that a standard plan was followed, and
that bomb threats were also made on 175 and 77; (2) I don’t believe it was
really a bomb (which would not have served the hijackers’ interests), nor do I
believe it was merely a prop. I suggest it was a gas canister awaiting use.

I propose
this scenario: once the “crash” occurs (World Trade Center, Pentagon), the
hijacker carrying the “bomb” (gas canister) goes to the cockpit and opens the
door. He activates the canister like a grenade, hurls it into the cabin, then
enters the cockpit, locking the door behind him. Who knows what this gas might
have been; it must have been fast-acting. Cyanide gas, for example, can render
victims unconscious within seconds before killing them, and in a pressurized
cabin, the gas would quickly impact everyone.

Meantime,
the hijackers would have been sealed safe inside the cockpits, wearing their
oxygen masks conveniently provided by United and American. My guess is they
made water landings near the surfaced sub (or perhaps some other Israeli
vessel). They would have rehearsed such landings in their El-Al practice jet(s).
The sub would pick them up with small craft, after the hijackers popped open a
cockpit window, and departed wearing their life preservers—again, nicely
provided by United and American. In the meantime, each airliner would sink to
the bottom of the ocean: perfect mass tombs—for just like the Maine, the Lusitania, and (the intended fate of) the Liberty, the sea bottom is the ideal place to conceal a false-flag
crime.

Dick Cheney served
as commander-in-chief that day (Bush having been consigned to do something his
own speed—reading the book The Pet Goat at
an elementary school). In a role paralleling Lyndon Baines Johnson during Israel’s
attack on the USS Liberty, Cheney may
have created a “safe space” for the Israeli rendezvous so that no U.S. fighter
jets would intrude and observe. Air Force veteran Field McConnell, who appears
a lot on alt media shows, says 11, 175
and 77 were all destroyed in an ocean sector called Whiskey 386, a military
training zone 60 miles off the Virginia coast, but he says that 93 had to be destroyed
over land.16 Although McConnell and I have differing outlooks on
9/11, we are very close on this particular.

Here’s a clip
from the 1965 James Bond movie Thunderball,which was about the theft of two nuclear bombs. The theft occurs by
hijacking a plane; the crew are killed with a gas. The hijacker then lands the
plane in the ocean; he makes a rendezvous with a ship; the plane itself sinks
in the ocean. Of course, I put little stock in Hollywood, but it’s interesting
that the clip embodies several elements similar to what I’ve just described:

Lest anyone
suggest it, this article was not“inspired” by Thunderball. But
art often mimics reality. Strangely, Thunderball
was the only Bond film to get remade, in 1983, as Never Say Never Again, with Sean Connery summoned out of his long
“Bond retirement.” In the new version, Spectre’s nuclear scheme was called “Allah’s
Tears,” a name befitting what the Middle East has experienced. The remake appeared
18 years after the original and 18 years before 9/11.

What happened to Flight 93?

Flight 93
departed Newark more than 40 minutes late. I suspect that most analysts are
correct in conjecturing that its intended target was the White House. A dual
attack on the Twin Towers, followed by a dual attack on the Pentagon and White
House, would have been ideal combinations to ramp up Americans for war.

Flight 93
was evidently shot down, not merely plunged by the pilots into the smoking Shanksville
crater. There was a widely scattered debris field; one engine was found more
than 600 yards from the infamous hole.17

I’ve clipped
some of this collected original news footage indicating Flight 93 was shot
down:

Cheney
acknowledges giving the order:

However, if Flight 93 was downed, I do not believe it was for the reason commonly
given (save the White House). I now believe, based on the collective phone
calls, that there really was a “let’s roll” attempt to recover the cockpit, but
with one difference: they were not retaking it from Muslim terrorists, but from
Israeli special ops. Indications are that the passengers overwhelmed the
terrorist guarding the cockpit and had begun breaching it. Remember, the flight
attendants had a key of their own.

(Note: one
reason I believe the 9/11 planes were physically—not electronically— hijacked,
is Flight 93’s behavior. When the passengers revolted, the plane began left-right,
up-down motions to knock them off their feet. This sounds much more like a live
pilot at the controls than a remote system.)

Let’s conjecture
what possible scenario might have unfolded had 93 not been destroyed: the
cockpit is retaken; the hijackers are subdued. One of the passengers, Donald
Greene, was a licensed pilot. Let’s say Greene and the flight attendants, with
coaching from air traffic controllers, were able to make a rough but successful
landing.

Now what
happens? The hijackers are arrested. Michael Chertoff may have succeeded in sending
the “dancing Israelis” home, but no way could he have released the hijackers
themselves. And once it was proven they were Israelis, not Muslims, 9/11’s entire
outcome would have changed. There would have been no long succession of U.S.
wars against Middle Eastern nations. Israel’s status with the U.S., including its
billions of dollars in annual assistance from American taxpayers, would have
been completely jeopardized.

Once it
became apparent that 93 was at risk for a successful passenger revolt, Cheney
ordered it shot down—not to protect the White House, but to ensure 9/11’s success.
He may even shot it down after consulting Netanyahu, who would have told him to
obliterate the plane. After all, the loss of four special ops was a small price
to pay compared to the all the gains Israel would reap from 9/11. Undoubtedly,
the Sayeret Matkal members who partook in 9/11 had been forewarned that, if
something went wrong that day, their lives might be at risk.

The infamous
Shanksville “hole” may have been from the discarded missile or drone that had
been intended to attack the White House, the real plane wreckage being widely
scattered.

The F-16
pilot(s) who shot down 93 would have been told to keep silent in the interest
of national security. And Cheney would have known that, if the shoot-down ever
became publicly exposed, he had the best of excuses: “Alas, it was a hard
choice, but I did it for America.”

I would
never call 9/11 a “simple” operation. But on a relative scale, I believe it was simpler than we thought—especially
when we understand it was, essentially, not an American “inside job” but an
Israeli “outside job”:

(1) two Israeli suitcase nukes in the basements of the Twin
Towers;

(2) explosives planted by the “Israeli art students” at the level of
the “airplane strikes”;

(3) either drones or missiles hitting all targets; the
latter launched from one or perhaps even two Israeli Dolphin-class submarines;

(4) real hijackings, executed by elite Israeli special forces, who successfully
sunk the planes at sea, with one exception—the botched-up Flight 93, which had
to be shot down.

Had the operatives on 93 played their cards right, they would
have stayed in their seats and done nothing, for the damage to the World Trade
Center and Pentagon was already enough to send America down the path of endless
wars for Israel.

Always
remember: It was not “dancing FBI agents” or “dancing Navy Seals” or “dancing
flight attendants” who were caught high-fiving each other, photographing
themselves, and celebrating as thousands of Americans died in agony at the
World Trade Center.